> Taking the plea deal shows reticence as it immediately requires an admission of guilt. Or it shows a preference for 5 years over the risk of 15 years out of

> Taking the plea deal shows reticence as it immediately requires an admission of guilt. Or it shows a preference for 5 years over the risk of 15 years out of pure fear or knowledge that the jury will be manipulated with pseudo-scientific "evidence". Taking a plea deal can be totally separate from guilt or innocence. > You're tying up immense resources simply to parse the details of your crime in an effort to convince a judge that maybe you're actually not that bad of a guy. You seem to be ignoring that someone may actually be innocent in some cases. You're sounding like an ambitious prosecutor yourself, or you just have too much faith that the system would never bring the wrong person to court. > Courts aim for settlements in civil trials, and they aim for pleas in criminal trials. Which, over time, turn into a perverse incentive structure because court time gets increasingly valued over justice and so plea deals become threats rather than offers. Fundamentally, when presenting prosecutorial evidence that's not what it appears, my reaction, if I ever need to defend myself against such things, world be to further tie up the courts time by presenting evidence against the evidence and / or demanding a thorough explanation of the implications of what is being described as evidence. This could add literal weeks to every single case that goes to trial. The method of evidence collection would be on trial because there's so much trust lost due to, basically, lies on the part of law enforcement and prosecution in their pursuit of conviction as metric for success and promotion.